confidential info on old harddrives.

From: Bill Yakowenko <yakowenk_at_cs.unc.edu>
Date: Mon May 31 23:29:16 1999

There are two valid and conflicting points here. The first is
legal: I (not being a lawyer or anything) believe it is probably
legal to take data from any system you legally acquire. The
second is pragmatic: if people know that you do this, none of us
will ever again get any meaningful parts of a classic machine.

The ethics of the matter are another matter, but in view of the
pragmatics, that seems moot. Making use of any such data is
suicide, at least in the long-term. Even if you are ethically
impaired enough to do this, please don't admit it in public.
This list, BTW, is archived and publically available at two web
sites that I know of, and maybe others that I don't.

        Cheers,
        Bill.


On Sun, 30 May 1999, bluoval <bluoval_at_mindspring.com> wrote:
] Tony Duell wrote:
] > >
] > > I wasn't following this thread but here's my opinion.
] > > A buy a house and everything it contains. There just happenes to be a treasure
] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] > There's the first difference. In most cases you're _not_ buying a computer
] > and all the data on the hard drive.
]
] If I buy a computer w/ a hard drive, what ever data it might contain is mine also.
] The seller is/was responsable for the data on there, not the buyer. the seller
] should've deleted what he thought was sensitive information. Unless the data is
] copyrighted, I have every right to do as i please with it, which would most likely
] be erasure.

Actually, this point isn't entirely right. Most likely the software
on that disk was under license, which couldn't be legally transferred
to you even if the seller wanted to. If you really believe you own
it, try taking some not-so-terribly-old Micro$oft product from a
scrap PC, making copies and reselling them. If you really own it,
no big-company lawyers will have a thing to say about it. :-)

] > If I buy a computer and the seller says 'Here's the master disks for all
] > the software I installed, and here are the licenses which I'll help you
] > to transfer to your name', then I think it's reasonable to assume that
] > you're getting that software as well. If he says 'BTW, I've left the
] > source code to a <whatever> that I was working on on the hard disk,
] > please take a look' then, again, I have no problem in reading said source
] > code.
] >
] > That is _not_ what we're talking about.
] >
] > > map in there leading me to a pot of gold. who owns the gold? ME.

Fine. If the seller of the computer agrees to sell you the data
as well the machine itself, you own it. But when somebody sells
you a house, the contract is not likely to say "house and all pots
of gold contained therein", nor is the seller of a computer likely
to agree that you own all data he forgot/was unable to delete.
Since nobody sane would ever agree to that, you are probably on
shakey ground assuming that it was part of the sale. So knowingly
using it for profit or to the seller's detriment would probably
put you on the losing end of a lawsuit.


] > Suppose you buy a house+contents. Stuffed down the back of a chair are
] > some old personal letters, bank statements, etc. Do you really think you
] > have the moral right to publish them? I certainly don't.
]
] I wasn't talking about morals. I'd probably find the previous owner and give
] it to them, if they wanted it. otherwise I'd trash it. I have no use for old
] letters and bank statements....
]
]
] > I must admit that if I bought a computer and found some previous repaired
] > had left the schematics or a diagnostic module inside, I might be tempted
] > to keep them and make use of them. That's a far cry from personal data,
] > though.
]
] There have been many books published from people's personal data... diaries,
...
] Do you think these people would have wanted their data published by some person
] who just happened to find it in an attic, in a house he just bought? probably
] not, but historically they're priceless.

But to publish that sort of discovery before it has properly aged
would put you in the category of tabloid rather than history buff.
Still legal, *maybe*, but certainly not likely to inspire future
donations.
Received on Mon May 31 1999 - 23:29:16 BST